Indonesia wants new capital, also a good idea for Thailand?
Bangkok is slipping shut
Earlier this week, Algemeen Dagblad published an extensive article about Indonesia, which wants to build a new capital on Borneo for 30 billion euros. The new Indonesian capital will be located in the province of East Kalimantan in the Indonesian part of the island of Borneo.
Pollution and the risk of flooding necessitate the abandonment of Jakarta as the capital, said President Joko Widodo. The move should begin in 2024. The president wants to move the capital for several reasons. Traffic in Jakarta is always jammed, air pollution is a major problem and there are regular floods. The move will cost a staggering 466 trillion rupiah.
You can read the whole article at https://www.ad.nl/buitenland/indonesie-wil-voor-30-miljard-euro-nieuwe-hoofdstad-op-borneo-bouwen~a3e9eb50
Thailand
The Indonesian plan looks good, although some (!) wrinkles will have to be ironed out. It could also give Thailand the idea of choosing a new capital, after all, Bangkok is experiencing the same problems as Jakarta. The thought of this is not new, because in 2012 I wrote an article for this blog under the title “Roi Et, the new capital of Thailand”
Honestly, I haven't read much about it since then, but it's still an interesting thought. I thought it would be nice to repeat the article from 2012 in its entirety!
ROI-ET: THE NEW CAPITAL OF THAILAND?
A rather remarkable report in the newspapers last week, with The Nation in the lead, about a plea for a move from the capital of Thailand to a place in the Northeast of Thailand. Dr. Art-Ong Jumsai da Ayudhua, a former scientist at NASA, spoke at a seminar on climate change, natural disasters and the future of Bangkok, which he says is sinking further every year due to, among other things, rising sea levels.
He mentioned the increase in annual rainfall and also the rise in water in the dam lakes in 2010 and 2011 and said that the trend in 2012 and subsequent years only leads to worse prospects, with all the consequences that entails. According to him, authorities must act adequately in order to drain the excess water to the sea as efficiently as possible.
But to recommend moving the capital elsewhere is quite a decision. Unique in the world you would say, but is that really the case? No, throughout history, capitals of countries have changed places hundreds of times. The ancient Egyptians, Romans and Chinese did it for all sorts of reasons. In recent history, capitals have also changed location very often, think of Brasilia in Brazil, Bonn went to Berlin, Malaysia transferred a large part of the government to Sri Jayawardena Kotte, the Laotian capital changed from Luang Prabang to Vientiane, the Indonesian capital was changed to Jakarta after Yogyakarta and the list can easily be completed with dozens of other examples. Some capitals are chosen because they are easy to defend in case of invasion or war. Others are chosen and/or built in previously underdeveloped areas to stimulate local economies. There are more reasons to change capital, think of a diplomatic choice in countries where there is a "fight" for the honor of a capital. That is why Washington was chosen as the capital in the United States and not Sydney or Melbourne, but Canberra in Australia.
The airport of Roi Et is still nice and quiet
The choice of Bangkok in 1792 was one of the first category. Thonburi was previously the capital of Ayutthaya on the western bank, strategically located at the mouth of the Chao Phraya River. Dutch documents have shown that the incoming ships for Ayutthaya were checked for their cargo and had to hand in their guns for the duration of their stay in Siam. King Rama I moved the capital to the eastern bank because it was easier to defend against possible attacks from the north.
That reason is no longer valid in this modern age and with the aforementioned problems to be expected, it is not such a bad idea to move the capital. The recommendation of Dr. Art-Ong to move the capital of Thailand is thus no exception worldwide. If one decides to do so, because it is expected that Bangkok will sooner or later be completely submerged, one should think of a location in an elevated area, somewhere in the 16 northeastern provinces.
I have only chosen Roi-Et in the middle of the Isaan. Not only does my wife come from there, but there will also be no conflict between, for example, Khon Kaen and Ubon Thani or other larger provinces. Such a move can take a long time, Dr. Art-Ong mentions 20 years, but will also be good for the Northeast for economic reasons. Finally something concrete would be done about poverty and employment in that area. Think about all that needs to be done, new roads, new railway lines, airport, government buildings, housing and schools, etc. etc.
But yes, this is Thailand, so you say it, will it remain a dream or will it become reality?
It has become clear to me that Bangkok is now a city that can best be avoided in terms of air pollution. It is also overcrowded and the other objections mentioned in the introductory section do not make it any better. It has my approval, because the isaan deserves more than it gets. The people benefit from it and the interest must be served for that. However, it must of course be spread over a long period of time, because it will cost something. So Thailand's accountants get to work for a cost-benefit picture and present it to the population and parties involved.
And don't you think that the 'overcrowded' and the 'air pollution' simply move along?
No, because moving the capital in name is relatively easy. Can today. The government does not have to reside in the capital. And moving all of Bangkok's economic activities is, in my opinion, impossible and economic suicide.
More and more economists are convinced that CITIES play (and continue to play) a much more important role in the economy than a country as they did about 500 years ago. Economically, London, New York, Tokyo, Frankfurt, Amsterdam are much more important than the areas around them.
I agree with you all, but moving the capital in name only does not solve Bangkok's problems, even if the government were to reside in the new capital. I also have to see if it works in Indonesia. At best, you get a sleepy government town like Ottawa or Canberra or a state-of-the-art government town like Putrajaya.
Moving the capital is not a question of good idea, but of dire necessity.
You cannot rule from a flooded city.
May I suggest that the new capital should not be further north than central Thailand, in a region where there is a lot of rain?
Then we give the excuse that in the north and northeast of Thailand there is not enough water for the millions of people that the new capital will attract.
And since the north of Thailand is higher than central Thailand, all the necessary water would have to be pumped up, which costs a lot of energy.
On the other hand, I'll probably be gone by the time I get there, so why bother.
I don't have the wisdom but I think Hua Hin and the surrounding area wouldn't be such a bad idea, climatically one of the best locations in Thailand and perhaps Asia, I heard that from a Monk who had been everywhere in Thailand and told me that is why the Royal Family have built their palaces around Hua Hin, everything is temperate there so far, heat, rain, storm etc etc and it is super central in Thailand. Of course I don't have to although I wouldn't experience it again, hhhhhhh, From me it can stay nice and quiet and I can cycle my daily rounds at ease.
Who will learn from Brasilia that was built in 4 years after the promise of Juscelino Kubitschek and Indonesia has a leading architect like Oscar Niemeyer. Is it the intention to annex Brunei in the longer term? Moving the capital will not ease the pressure on Jakarta and Bangkok as economic centers.
Thailand can simply restore the former capital Ayutaya.
Of course then a huge pity for this beautiful environment.
Unlike Jakarta, located on Indonesia's westernmost island, Bangkok is quite central to Thailand. The proposed location in Indonesia is therefore much more centrally located, which is one of the reasons for the choice. If the soil height is a problem in Bangkok, this can be solved quite easily by simply moving the location about 30 to 40 kilometers eastward. Then you are already above 50 meters in height. See the elevation map of the area around Bangkok, if you click on a location the elevation will be displayed: https://nl-nl.topographic-map.com/maps/rgo9/Bangkok/
Dear Jan
Sumatra, which is almost 1.5 times larger than Java, is a lot further west.
The planned place in Borneo is actually on the north side of Borneo. So actually closer to the Philippines than it would be centrally located in Indonesia.
It is overlooked that West Irian yaya or former Dutch New Guinea.
.
Central should be Celebes. Has even better harbor possibilities and greater draft.
Dear Rori,
Indeed, Sumatra is to the west. Regarding the North-South ratio, however, the new location (between Samarinda and Balikpapan) is at 2 degrees south latitude, while the northernmost point is at 6 degrees north latitude, and the southernmost point at 10 degrees south latitude. So in that respect, the location is perfectly in the middle: both 8 degrees from the northernmost and southernmost point! In the East-West ratio, the location should be 5 degrees more east (is 118, while 123 is the midpoint between 104 and 142). Then the more eastern Celebes does indeed come into the picture, but the difference is not too great. In addition, the demographic map shows that the population density of the country clearly leans towards the west.
What is ignored here for convenience is that people have already had such a plan in Myanmar. This failed 100%. Furthermore, south of Madrid, there is a ghost town with a field that is also empty.
What is ignored is the loss of value of all investments in Jakarta. The people have to go too. We're talking about 10 million people. Estimate the cost per person at 100.000 euros. So from cost consideration a wish, but whether that is realistic is another.
It is better to spread more government services and companies.
Think of Surabaya, Semarand. Or spread across the islands. Medan, Bandung, Makasar, and Kaimana
makes much more sense.
What do we mean by moving the capital? That the seat of government will be moved? Is that the only thing?
In the Netherlands, the government does not have its seat in the capital, so it is not a law that the government also has its office in the capital; that is, all ministries. Should the Thai ministries and the seat of parliament now be moved outside Bangkok? There is something to be said for this from the point of view of spreading employment. Due to the increasing technological possibilities, it may be possible to assign a ministry to each major city with an emphasis on the economic activities in the region. In Phuket the Ministry of Tourism, in Buriram or Udonthani of Agriculture etc etc.
I firmly believe that the economic heart, Bangkok, will be very difficult to move because it has to do not only with the seat of government but also with infrastructure, availability of sufficiently qualified personnel, the seat of banks, an international airport, sufficient housing and other facilities (shops, theatres, museums, universities) etc. etc.
I don't see it happening anytime soon, because with a well-functioning water management plan, Bangkok can also stay dry. If Bangkok also grows up to 30 km in the east and west, they can still move forward.
I also have an idea for the Isaan; map all poor farmlands and dig water reservoirs there combined with the original deciduous forests. Thanks to water management, the reservoirs can serve as irrigation water in the dry periods.
Realizing all this creates a lot of employment (it is estimated that an area such as Belgium has become salinized in this region) and because of those forests, Western countries and investment funds are prepared to pay. In addition, borrowing money is not so terribly expensive anymore
It is clear that Thailand needs to increase its water storage, also in connection with the dams that China is building and the increasing amount of water that China is withdrawing from the rivers.
But apparently water storage from the rain that falls in Thailand is not a priority.
Trying to found a new capital in Thailand is nothing new. In 1942-44 during the Japanese occupation, Prime Minister Field Marshal Plaek Phibunsongkhram attempted to establish a new capital at Phetchabun, 100 km southeast of Phitsanulok. He found Bangkok too vulnerable to enemy attacks.
New roads were built, a large temple was built and plans were made for government buildings. The plans were plagued by illness and lack of funds. In 1944 Prime Minister Phibunsongkhram resigned and the project was forgotten to this day.
Everyone is now falling over Brazil for the many forest fires, but what do you think has to be destroyed in Borneo for such a prestige plan and economic growth.
And that same rainforest in Borneo is struggling just as much as the Amazon and is the 2nd lung of the earth!
Nothing is destroyed! At least, that is the promise of the president who has indicated that the new capital will be built where there is no rainforest, no orangutans and no steppe. We can guess what is there….
But apart from those objections, Jakarta is sinking into the bottom just like Bangkok so they have to. Now or in 50 years. The bottom sinks, the sea water rises. This week, a number of tiny islands in the Pacific, but also Timor-Leste, met to discuss what awaits them in the long term. And that doesn't make you happy.